It is to the credit of these leaders that they debated the issue in the first place.Ĭritics of Truman's decision misunderstand both the political atmosphere at the time and concepts of ethics in wartime. It is simply not usual for a nation to hold a cabinet-level debate on the ethics of employing a certain killing device in the midst of a total war. What is truly impressive is that the American leadership actually debated whether or not to use the bombs at all. Continuing another month, and using all available means to achieve the optimal political objective is not illogical or immoral wartime policy. The bomb provided a means for obtaining the emotional and political goal of unconditional surrender. unconditional surrender policy for at least the month of August 1945. surrender policy have occurred to avoid a protracted war? Perhaps yes, and this is about the most conspiratorial one can get and remain credible: The bomb made unnecessary any interest in altering the U.S. Faced with even only 46,000 American deaths in a fall 1945 invasion of the Japanese homeland, might an alteration of the U.S. On July 2, Secretary of State James Byrnes and predecessor Cordell Hull vetoed a State Department draft to make clear that the Imperial Institution in Japan could stay after the war. policy of unconditional surrender was, in fact, considered before the bomb was successfully tested in New Mexico in late July 1945. But the Japanese leadership continued the war.
![enola gay apush enola gay apush](http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/photos/tinlbpt2.jpg)
More than 300,000 Japanese were killed through strategic bombing in the 12 months before the two atomic bombs. The single incendiary attack on Tokyo on March 10, 1945, killed 100,000 Japanese - 20,000 more than were killed at Hiroshima. Yet for 16 months, Japan refused to accept the Allied surrender terms. Beginning in April 1944, the Japanese leadership saw every major Japanese city burned to the ground through a strategic firebombing campaign that was just as catastrophic as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
#Enola gay apush series#
How can anyone argue with confidence that the atomic bombs were not needed to help end the war? Just six months after Pearl Harbor, starting with Midway, the United States achieved an unbroken series of military victories against Japan. Japan may have been near defeat, but not near surrender. "We will be able to inflict extremely heavy damage on enemy," he argued.
Even after two bombs were dropped on Japan, Army Chief of Staff Umezu argued that although ultimate victory was not certain, the army was capable of one more campaign.
![enola gay apush enola gay apush](https://cdnph.upi.com/pv/upi/b313cbca266e97ed9e40214ffc71d658/BOMBING-OF-HIROSHIMA.jpg)
As late as July 30, Japan had officially responded to the Potsdam Proclamation with silence. Naval Chief of Staff Toyoda insisted that he did not believe Japan would be "positively defeated." For the first time in Japanese history, the emperor himself rose to break a political stalemate and directed his cabinet to end the war to stop the suffering of his people. Japanese Premier Suzuki and Foreign Minister Togo reported to the emperor that a decision favorable to a termination of the war could not be expected from either the Supreme Council or the cabinet. After two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan and more than 100,000 Japanese killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those wishing to continue to fight matched those who were ready to accept surrender. 9, 1945, to decide whether to accept the Allied terms for surrender was locked in stalemate. Van de Velde February 10, 1995ĭuring the recent debate regarding the display of the Enola Gay in the Smithsonian and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan, no one bothered to point out that the Japanese cabinet that met on Aug.